IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA th ON THE 12 OF JULY, 2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7183 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

SAWROOP @ SAROOP SINGH S/O GURDEEP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SELF EMPLOYEE R/O NAYAGAON AT PRESENT R/O MUHARA SANGRAMPUR SINDHI CAMP BAADI TEHSIL BAADI DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI S. B. SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION BAADI DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. VICTIM A D/O NOT MENTION OCCUPATION: NOT MENTION NOT MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT NO.1-STATE BY SHRI S. P. CHADAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE - AND RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI NEERAJ DUBEY -

ADVOCATE)

This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This is first Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, for grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant against the order dated 23.05.2023 passed in Bail Application No.93/2023.

The appellant has been arrested on 07.05.2023 in connection with (FIR)/Crime No.115/2023 dated 06.05.2023 registered at Police Station Baadi, district Raisen, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376, and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v-a) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The appellant is in judicial custody since 07.05.2023 and the trial will take long time to conclude. The appellant is a permanent resident of district Raisen and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant on bail.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary and judgment of the trial court.

According to prosecution case, the prosecutrix was standing alone when the applicant arrived there and offered to give lift to her. He then took the prosecutrix to Ansaar Wali Pulia and there raped her. The name of wrong doer is mentioned as Swaroop in the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the prosecutrix as well as in FIR but in the statements given under section 164 Cr.P.C. the name of wrong doer is mentioned as Saurabh. It is claimed in those statements before the Court that after the incident, the prosecutrix called her husband and brother- in-law who came there and they beat the person named Saurabh. The MLC of applicant does not reflect any external injuries. There is no test identification parade report despite there being difference in name of the wrong doer.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deem it appropriate to release the appellant. Therefore, without commenting on the merit of the case, the appeal is allowed It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned for his regular appearance before the said Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of trial.

It is directed that the appellant shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed and disposed of (ANURADHA SHUKLA)

JUDGE ps Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.07.13 13:17:50 +05'30'

Adobe Reader version: 11.0.23